Swedish docking ban
set to stay

Tail docking has
been banned by law for all breeds since 1989. Originally one could show
dogs docked in Sweden for medical reasons with a veterinary attest but
this isn't possible any more.

It is allowed to
show docked dogs imported from other countries or owned by exhibitors,
who live in a country, where tail-docking is still permitted. One can
breed from docked dogs without limitations.

At the moment there
are no laws which ban the showing of docked dogs, but in the future -
who knows.

The leading newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Today's
News) carried the following item on December 6 1995;

Hunting dog allowed to
keep its tail.

The Board of Agriculture makes no exception
from the tail docking prohibition. The Pointer Club has with the support
of the Swedish Kennel Club demanded that the tail shall be allowed to
be cut off from new-born Pointer puppies because dogs of the breed often
injure their tails during hunting. But the Board does not agree that the
documentation submitted motivates any exception from prohibition.

The Board also points out the Council of
Europe Convention for the Protection of Pets. According to the Convention,
surgical operations, especially tail docking on pet animals are prohibited
if done for aesthetic reasons and not because of accidental injuries.
Sweden has signed to this Convention without reservations.

Eva has also brought a further Swedish news
item relating to docking to the CDB's attention. The following news item
appeared in Dagens Nyheter dated January 31 1996:

Fined for illegal tail
docking

A dog breeder has been convicted for cutting
the tail of at least four puppies with a pair of scissors: The docking
was done at sea on board a borrowed fishing boat. The man maintained in
court that he was on International territory and that the Swedish tail
docking prohibition therefore was not applicable. But the Angleholm District
Court asserted that the law is applicable because the offence was committed
on board a Swedish ship. The 56 year-old man was therefore sentenced to
a 50 day fine, based on his daily income, for violating the Animal Protection
Law.

The defendant said that he docked the tails
of the Rottweiler puppies because he is selling his puppies to security
companies. According to him, these companies do not want dogs with tails.
The illegal tail docking was discovered when the man took his puppies
to a veterinarian.

Eva Sohlberg commented; "I am not a lawyer,
but this sentence was absolutely correct according to Swedish and International
law. A registered ship is always considered national territory of this
country and any crime committed on board national territory is tried by
the corresponding national court. "Even if this man had borrowed a sailing
boat under a German flag in case tail docking is permitted in Germany
he might still have been charged with illegal import of animals without
prior licence."

Eva goes on to draw parallels with Sweden's
new draconian Dog Breeding Regulations Act which was passed by the Swedish
parliament in February 1995. The law states; "An animal inheriting malformation
or other qualities causing suffering for the offspring or negatively affect
the natural functions .of the offspring may not be used for breeding.
Nor may any animal be used for breeding if it inherits disposition for
a high frequency of disease or difficulties in giving birth or if it lacks
capability to reproduce in the natural way."

Eva said; "There has always been a general
spirit to conform among Swedish people and to follow democratic decision.
This is why there seems to be no opposition against the further ideas
of the Council of Europe."

Docking
Ban For Finland

Finland introduced a total ban on docking
in 1966 after the Finnish Government voted in favour of it by a large
majority. The vote came during the second reading of the Governments comprehensive
animal protection bill.

The vote for the ban in the 200 member Parliament
was 136 for and 25 against. A motion that would have allowed breeders
of gundog breeds to dock one third of the tail on their dogs was defeated
at the same time.

Under the law, no tail docking is allowed
in Finland and a fine or a prison sentence up to two years will be imposed
on offenders. The law also gives the Ministry of Agriculture wide powers
on the implementation of the law.

Docked dogs may only
be shown, if the dog was born before January 2001, even if the dog comes
from a country, where docking is still allowed and this applies to all
shows, even world shows. There are no restrictions on breeding from docked
dogs.

Robert
Killick Comments

Reprinted by kind permission
of Robert Killick and Our Dogs

This article
first appeared in Our Dogs (a UK canine publication) 6 October 1995

Readers will be well aware of my persistent
cry, "Where is the evidence"? I get increasingly tired of people who should
know better, pontificating on subjects making definitive statements without
any proof.

I was rather interested to read Prof. Morton`s
statement at the docking disciplinary hearing that dew claws are a vestige
in Darwinian terms, indicative I presume that he thinks they are of no
further use. Where is his evidence? I've no doubt that the claws are of
no use of dogs that live in artificial circumstances, by that I mean not
in a wild state. That is not evidence that they are vestiges. It could
mean they are simply not in use.

The fact that I once to cut dew claws of
a West Highland White Terrier that had grown back into the leg, prompted
me to make a series of observations on foxes. I examined the dew claws
of fourteen dead specimens. I found no evidence of any claws being overgrown,
in fact their dew claws were worn down as were the main claws. From this
I deduced that the dew claws were used for a purpose which wore them down,
probably to assist the animal when climbing over rocks and up steep inclines.
I do not know why it is that some dogs having ingrown dew claws and others
of the same litter living in the same conditions, do not, it might have
something to do with the genes and the growth rate of the nail.

I have to say that to refuse to dock and
then happily cut off dew claws is the height of double thinking verging
on the ridiculous and certainly doesn't fool anyone.

Vet Steve Dean made a comment at the same
hearing which attracted my attention, he opined that a tail was relatively
unimportant as far as body language is concerned. Now that's really radical,
I wrote that in an article some two years ago, everybody thought me some
sort of nut. It's these behaviourists trying to justify their existence
who put it about that dogs signal to each other with their tails, once
again, without evidence. They have a thought then jump about as if they've
made a great discovery, they ignore questions like why doesn't a Dobe
fall over turning sharply on the run, how can the OES swim in the right
direction without a rudder? Can a Rottie not communicate?

They've said it's a signalling device so
often they believe it, but worse, they've kidded thousands of ordinarily
sane people. I've never had faith in the theory of human body language
either, I just don't believe that folding my arms in front means I've
closed my mind to suggestion. Its rubbish and should be disregarded along
with this politically correctness with which we are lumbered with by American
pseuds.

I've got this theory about dogs tails, a
few million years ago there was a group of animals from which dogs may
well have stemmed called Miacis, they were arboreal, that is to say, tree
dwellers. Tree dwellers such as monkeys, apes, sloths and others, use
their tails like an extra hand, a prehensile limb. Why should a dog's
tail not have been prehensile and in evolutionary terms, it's lost all
its use. Its a better theory than that of the behaviourists and would
account for the fact that it makes no difference to the dog whether it's
got a tail or not.

Our own tails would have been prehensile,
pity we haven't still got them, have a little think about that! A vet
could be cutting off dew claws and writing a bill at the very same time.